Personally, I like all three and I'll never understand why certain philosophers/apologists desire to lift one above the other, often to the detriment to the other. None of the three are mutually exclusive.

Personally, I'm fond of the Kalaam Cosmological argument simply because of the familiarity people have with it. The weakness is that it doesn't really flesh things out. The Ontological Argument is the most logically sound, but least likely to convince anyone due to the complexities involved in the argument. The Teleological Argument is what I like to call the "lay-person argument" because the average person will buy it. However, of the three this is probably the weakest, with exception to arguments on the first cell and the required complexity of the first cell.

Perhaps it's a big self-promoting, but I've actually worked to develop what I call the "Damascene Cosmological Argument." I've yet to submit the argument to a journal, however, because I'm still fleshing it out. But in short, it's based on St. John of Damascus' argument in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, third chapter. It's meant to flesh things out more than the Kalaam does and I find it, so far, to be superior to the Kalaam. Most likely I'll turn this into my thesis topic and/or eventual dissertation, either way I do plan on finishing it up and submitting it to an academic journal at some point.

From that, I'll tell you that in light of modern science and the failure to explain the origins of the Big Bang, I'm partial to almost any sound Cosmological argument.

But I'm also partial to existential arguments, such as the one put forth by Pascal, stating that human existence makes no sense unless there is a God.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

"The so-called logical evidence for the existence of God is: the cosmological, theological, psychological, historical, ethical proofs, and many more, which, through the passing of time have been formulated into philosophical rationalism. They cannot, in the Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church, have a value of real evidence because they are based on the principles of the relative, limited, sinful minds and senses of humanity. To the Church and the Revelation, the truth about the existence of God is an illogical and irrational hypothesis, which has the need of proof with the basis of logical reasoning, the truth which God has revealed to us, and is therefore the unquestionable, true evidence. As a divine and given reality, this truth is not dependent on proof and arguments from rational functions of the mind." - St. Justin Popovich, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, p. 202

« Last Edit: January 24, 2011, 12:52:47 AM by Asteriktos »

Logged

"The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." (Isa. 28:20)

Personally, I like all three and I'll never understand why certain philosophers/apologists desire to lift one above the other, often to the detriment to the other. None of the three are mutually exclusive.

Personally, I'm fond of the Kalaam Cosmological argument simply because of the familiarity people have with it. The weakness is that it doesn't really flesh things out. The Ontological Argument is the most logically sound, but least likely to convince anyone due to the complexities involved in the argument. The Teleological Argument is what I like to call the "lay-person argument" because the average person will buy it. However, of the three this is probably the weakest, with exception to arguments on the first cell and the required complexity of the first cell.

Perhaps it's a big self-promoting, but I've actually worked to develop what I call the "Damascene Cosmological Argument." I've yet to submit the argument to a journal, however, because I'm still fleshing it out. But in short, it's based on St. John of Damascus' argument in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, third chapter. It's meant to flesh things out more than the Kalaam does and I find it, so far, to be superior to the Kalaam. Most likely I'll turn this into my thesis topic and/or eventual dissertation, either way I do plan on finishing it up and submitting it to an academic journal at some point.

From that, I'll tell you that in light of modern science and the failure to explain the origins of the Big Bang, I'm partial to almost any sound Cosmological argument.

But I'm also partial to existential arguments, such as the one put forth by Pascal, stating that human existence makes no sense unless there is a God.

I would love to read more about the argument that you propose. I am currently working on my masters degree in philosophy and I like to be in dialogue with other philosophy students.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Personally, I like all three and I'll never understand why certain philosophers/apologists desire to lift one above the other, often to the detriment to the other. None of the three are mutually exclusive.

Personally, I'm fond of the Kalaam Cosmological argument simply because of the familiarity people have with it. The weakness is that it doesn't really flesh things out. The Ontological Argument is the most logically sound, but least likely to convince anyone due to the complexities involved in the argument. The Teleological Argument is what I like to call the "lay-person argument" because the average person will buy it. However, of the three this is probably the weakest, with exception to arguments on the first cell and the required complexity of the first cell.

Perhaps it's a big self-promoting, but I've actually worked to develop what I call the "Damascene Cosmological Argument." I've yet to submit the argument to a journal, however, because I'm still fleshing it out. But in short, it's based on St. John of Damascus' argument in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, third chapter. It's meant to flesh things out more than the Kalaam does and I find it, so far, to be superior to the Kalaam. Most likely I'll turn this into my thesis topic and/or eventual dissertation, either way I do plan on finishing it up and submitting it to an academic journal at some point.

From that, I'll tell you that in light of modern science and the failure to explain the origins of the Big Bang, I'm partial to almost any sound Cosmological argument.

But I'm also partial to existential arguments, such as the one put forth by Pascal, stating that human existence makes no sense unless there is a God.

I would love to read more about the argument that you propose. I am currently working on my masters degree in philosophy and I like to be in dialogue with other philosophy students.

I'll probably post up my rough-draft (just outlining my thoughts on it basically) on my site sometime today. If I do, I'll provide a link.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Personally, I like all three and I'll never understand why certain philosophers/apologists desire to lift one above the other, often to the detriment to the other. None of the three are mutually exclusive.

Personally, I'm fond of the Kalaam Cosmological argument simply because of the familiarity people have with it. The weakness is that it doesn't really flesh things out. The Ontological Argument is the most logically sound, but least likely to convince anyone due to the complexities involved in the argument. The Teleological Argument is what I like to call the "lay-person argument" because the average person will buy it. However, of the three this is probably the weakest, with exception to arguments on the first cell and the required complexity of the first cell.

Perhaps it's a big self-promoting, but I've actually worked to develop what I call the "Damascene Cosmological Argument." I've yet to submit the argument to a journal, however, because I'm still fleshing it out. But in short, it's based on St. John of Damascus' argument in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, third chapter. It's meant to flesh things out more than the Kalaam does and I find it, so far, to be superior to the Kalaam. Most likely I'll turn this into my thesis topic and/or eventual dissertation, either way I do plan on finishing it up and submitting it to an academic journal at some point.

From that, I'll tell you that in light of modern science and the failure to explain the origins of the Big Bang, I'm partial to almost any sound Cosmological argument.

But I'm also partial to existential arguments, such as the one put forth by Pascal, stating that human existence makes no sense unless there is a God.

I would love to read more about the argument that you propose. I am currently working on my masters degree in philosophy and I like to be in dialogue with other philosophy students.

I'll probably post up my rough-draft (just outlining my thoughts on it basically) on my site sometime today. If I do, I'll provide a link.

I eagerly look forward to reading it.

Logged

"Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing."- St. Augustine of Hippo

Personally, I like all three and I'll never understand why certain philosophers/apologists desire to lift one above the other, often to the detriment to the other. None of the three are mutually exclusive.

They're all crap arguments though, and rooted in ignorance and illogic

Quote

Personally, I'm fond of the Kalaam Cosmological argument simply because of the familiarity people have with it. The weakness is that it doesn't really flesh things out. The Ontological Argument is the most logically sound, but least likely to convince anyone due to the complexities involved in the argument. The Teleological Argument is what I like to call the "lay-person argument" because the average person will buy it. However, of the three this is probably the weakest, with exception to arguments on the first cell and the required complexity of the first cell.

Perhaps it's a big self-promoting, but I've actually worked to develop what I call the "Damascene Cosmological Argument." I've yet to submit the argument to a journal, however, because I'm still fleshing it out. But in short, it's based on St. John of Damascus' argument in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, third chapter. It's meant to flesh things out more than the Kalaam does and I find it, so far, to be superior to the Kalaam. Most likely I'll turn this into my thesis topic and/or eventual dissertation, either way I do plan on finishing it up and submitting it to an academic journal at some point.

Love to hear it. If it isn't a good deal more sound than the Kalam, though, it isn't any good, simply because the Kalam is one of the most wretched bits of horsecrap I've ever come across. You can't even get past P1 without running into problems. P2 is a rectally extracted blind assertion, and the whole thing commits the fallacy of composition.

Quote

From that, I'll tell you that in light of modern science and the failure to explain the origins of the Big Bang, I'm partial to almost any sound Cosmological argument.

Never come across a sound cosmological argument. Further, the mechanism behind the big bang (which wasn't big and didn't bang) is soemthing we're working on. Given that we've only known that the cosmos was bigger than just the Milky Way for 80 years, though, cosmology is still quite a young science. Moreover, what you have just done is flat-out admitted that you are partial to god of the gaps reasoning, because that's what that constitutes.

Personally, I like all three and I'll never understand why certain philosophers/apologists desire to lift one above the other, often to the detriment to the other. None of the three are mutually exclusive.

They're all crap arguments though, and rooted in ignorance and illogic

Quote

Personally, I'm fond of the Kalaam Cosmological argument simply because of the familiarity people have with it. The weakness is that it doesn't really flesh things out. The Ontological Argument is the most logically sound, but least likely to convince anyone due to the complexities involved in the argument. The Teleological Argument is what I like to call the "lay-person argument" because the average person will buy it. However, of the three this is probably the weakest, with exception to arguments on the first cell and the required complexity of the first cell.

Perhaps it's a big self-promoting, but I've actually worked to develop what I call the "Damascene Cosmological Argument." I've yet to submit the argument to a journal, however, because I'm still fleshing it out. But in short, it's based on St. John of Damascus' argument in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, third chapter. It's meant to flesh things out more than the Kalaam does and I find it, so far, to be superior to the Kalaam. Most likely I'll turn this into my thesis topic and/or eventual dissertation, either way I do plan on finishing it up and submitting it to an academic journal at some point.

Love to hear it. If it isn't a good deal more sound than the Kalam, though, it isn't any good, simply because the Kalam is one of the most wretched bits of horsecrap I've ever come across. You can't even get past P1 without running into problems. P2 is a rectally extracted blind assertion, and the whole thing commits the fallacy of composition.

Quote

From that, I'll tell you that in light of modern science and the failure to explain the origins of the Big Bang, I'm partial to almost any sound Cosmological argument.

Never come across a sound cosmological argument. Further, the mechanism behind the big bang (which wasn't big and didn't bang) is soemthing we're working on. Given that we've only known that the cosmos was bigger than just the Milky Way for 80 years, though, cosmology is still quite a young science. Moreover, what you have just done is flat-out admitted that you are partial to god of the gaps reasoning, because that's what that constitutes.

I've met many internet atheists who say that such arguments are illogical. Funny though, I've never met a logician who said the same thing (even among atheists). This would tell me that internet atheists who gather most of their knowledge from YouTube probably don't understand what constitutes "logically valid." Rather, what most people attack are whether or not the premises are true or false.

So we take the Kalaam argument, which reads:

P1 - Everything that begins to exist has a causeP2 - The Universe began to existC - The Universe has a cause

Now, there are no formal fallacies or material fallacies in the above. There might be material fallacies in arguing for the truth of P1 or P2, but those would constitute further arguments; in the syllogistic argument itself, there are neither formal fallacies nor material fallacies, indicating that the argument is logically valid. The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Thus, if the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. But the truth of the premises has no effect on whether or not the argument is logically valid.

The other problem that you're either not aware of or ignoring is whether or not an infinite regress can exist in reality. If it cannot, then research all you want, you'll never find an answer. This would be akin to saying someday we'll find something that is both red and not red; we'd be looking for something that logically cannot exist.

Therefore, the arguments are logically valid; the question is if they're truthful or not. I would contend that if you haven't found a good cosmological argument then you haven't been looking in the right places; that or you're what I deem a "YouTube" atheist, someone who watches a 5-6 minute video and assumes he is now the expert on all things related to the video.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus